"Democrats may stand in Obama's way on gun measures"

These Democrats from largely rural states with strong gun cultures view Obama's proposals warily and have not committed to supporting them. The lawmakers' concerns could stand in the way of strong legislation before a single Republican gets a chance to vote "no."

"There's a core group of Democratic senators, most but not all from the West, who represent states with a higher-than-average rate of gun ownership but an equally strong desire to feel their kids are safe," said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. "They're having hard but good conversations with people back home to identify the middle-ground solutions that respect the Second Amendment but make it harder for dangerous people to get their hands on guns."

All eyes are on these dozen or so Democrats, some of whom face re-election in 2014. That includes Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Folks - if you live in one of the states represented by these legislators, you need to turn up the heat. If you haven't contacted them before, you need to do it BEFORE democrats begin to build up the momentum they need to try to pass this stuff.

The time is NOW!!!

Democrats may stand in Obama's way on gun measures - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-may-stand-obamas-way-gun-measures-134432125--politics.html)

If you enjoyed reading about ""Democrats may stand in Obama's way on gun measures"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Kiln

January 26, 2013, 04:15 PM

They'll oppose it. Not because it is what they want or believe in, but because they are politicians. They know that this won't be a popular piece of legislation.

Keep the heat on these guys.

Spats McGee

January 26, 2013, 09:33 PM

I'm from Arkansas, and I've written to Pryor on at least 3 occasions. My emails have been very clear in my support of gun rights, and his responses have been very noncommittal.

hso

January 26, 2013, 10:08 PM

What we need to do is support them in serving their constituents instead of Washington or Chicago.

Remind them of where they come from and that their constituents are as easily lied to about firearms and that those same constituents will not understand if they serve Senator Feinstein's 30 year out of date thinking.

Dr_B

January 26, 2013, 11:39 PM

I want so much to believe none of this legislation will pass. I want to believe some Democrats will stand in its way. And I want to believe that the American public is awake enough, and intelligent enough that they won't swallow all the political nonsense that is swirling around them. But I am rapidly losing hope.

ezkl2230

January 27, 2013, 12:08 PM

"And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas," he says.

He's trying to steer the debate away from self-defense or protection from government tyranny and frame it strictly in terms of hunting.

We can't fall for that.

His efforts to re-direct the debate tells us that the arguments we are making ARE HAVING AN EFFECT. This is a classic debate strategy. If you can't win on the merits of your argument, try to direct attention in another direction. As I have said in other posts, the side that frames the debate wins the debate. We have to make sure he isn't allowed to do that by keeping the pressure on our legislators, particularly the democrats who are leaning towards bucking the party.

It's time to redouble our efforts!

BTW, this article says Obama shoots skeet all the time at Camp David, and frequently invites guests to the camp to shoot skeet.

Final thought. I have no use for the man who said this, but the idea is appropriate. When it comes to the gun control debate, we have to shake their confidence in passing the legislation. That is beginning to happen. That means we have to "Get 'em skeered and keep the skeer on' em" (Confederate Lt. General Nathan B. Forrest). Keep up the pressure until they finally stop trying.

sdj

January 27, 2013, 02:09 PM

Just contacted all my reps and senators via email. Encourage all to do the same. Liberty lost is like a 9/16" wrench at the bottom of lake Superior (Lake Baikal would be more like it, really): pretty tough to get back.

oldjeeper

January 27, 2013, 02:26 PM

I spent many hours trying to fight our harsh gun laws in Canada..You guys have to keep the pressure on your reps..let them know that all gun owners have long memories at election time..

ezkl2230

January 27, 2013, 03:53 PM

OK Folks! Feinstein is truly scared!

"This has always been an uphill fight. This has never been easy. This is the hardest of the hard," Feinstein said.

BUT...

"I think I can get it passed because the American people are very much for it," Feinstein said of the measure that follows a similar measure she championed into law 1994 but expired a decade later.

Tell her otherwise! Don't just contact your own legislators, contact Feinstein directly! Stuff her email box, jam her phone lines, run her fax machine out of paper.

She is worried - VERY worried! To paraphrase Lt. Gen. NB Forrest, "Get 'er skeered and keep the skeer on' er." She's skeered! Keep the pressure on her until she quits trying to ram this down our throats! Let's show her that this isn't just the NRA talking, this isn't just firearms and ammo manufacturers talking, this is MILLIONS of very angry, grassroots, legal firearms owners and carriers talking - the same firearms owners that were able to convince congressmen to let the FIRST AWB die!

10mm Mike

January 27, 2013, 06:06 PM

Mark Pryor may be on his way out anyways due to his part in obamacare. If he wants any chance of reelection at all, he's going to need to have alot more of a firm stance against gun control rather than just being noncommittal or a fence sitter.

hso

January 27, 2013, 06:27 PM

he wants any chance of reelection at all, he's going to need to have alot more of a firm stance against gun control

Then tell him that you'll spend time and money to help him if he blocks every attempt at further restricting firearms owners. Remind him of his vulnerability. Promise that you'll work at least as hard to see him defeated if he does support any sort of ban.

10mm Mike

January 27, 2013, 06:38 PM

Then tell him that you'll spend time and money to help him if he blocks every attempt at further restricting firearms owners. Remind him of his vulnerability. Promise that you'll work at least as hard to see him defeated if he does support any sort of ban.

I intend to do just that. We'll, sort of... I was planning to do my part in voting him out anyways, but that can be our little secret. :D

hso

January 27, 2013, 06:53 PM

Never lie (and never say your going to).

Tell him that you'll work for his defeat with all the spare time and money you can scrape together in both the primary and general election if he doesn't remember where he comes from and who his constituents are and supports any ban of firearms, magazines, or ammunition and American's access to them.

RetiredUSNChief

January 27, 2013, 07:42 PM

FEINSTEIN IS WORRIED!!! Says NRA is only mouthpiece for manufacturers!
OK Folks! Feinstein is truly scared!

Tell her otherwise! Don't just contact your own legislators, contact Feinstein directly! Stuff her email box, jam her phone lines, run her fax machine out of paper.

Yep, anti's have been harping that angle, too.

Sure, gun manufacturers support the NRA. But they only do so because WE, the gun owners and future gun purchasers, are the market keeping them in business.

Manufacturers cannot successfully lobby if a market doesn't exist. Manufacturers, gun owners, and future gun owners are working TOGETHER, hand-in-hand, to protect EACH of our interests.

But your strategy is the correct one. The only thing I would add to that is to CONTINUALLY contact all these people...not just once or twice. Let them know that not only are you concerned, but that you are NOT forgetting...and are NOT going to let them forget that you are concerned.

10mm Mike

January 27, 2013, 08:03 PM

Never lie (and never say your going to).

Tell him that you'll work for his defeat with all the spare time and money you can scrape together in both the primary and general election if he doesn't remember where he comes from and who his constituents are and supports any ban of firearms, magazines, or ammunition and American's access to them.

I'm going to lie. I'm going to tell him I oppose all of the proposed gun legislation and that I expect him to do his job and represent me by opposing it as well. Short, sweet, and to the point.

HorseSoldier

January 27, 2013, 08:59 PM

Mark Begich of Alaska

I don't think Begich is personally fond of gun control, but I know that he is aware he won't be further employed by the citizens of Alaska if he votes for anything gun control related. He barely made it into office in his first senate race, and that was with the DOJ conveniently indicting his opponent on felony charges just before the election.

His efforts to re-direct the debate tells us that the arguments we are making ARE HAVING AN EFFECT. This is a classic debate strategy. If you can't win on the merits of your argument, try to direct attention in another direction.

+1. I think Obama et al thought that Sandy Hook was their chance to replay the Long Island Railroad shooting ---> '94 AWB scenario, but they forgot what the 94 AWB cost them and they opted to just be ignorant of demographic shifts, or really weren't aware how popular scary black rifles have become.

The analogy I posted in another thread still seems to be holding true -- Obama saw an opening, charged his troops into it, and is just now realizing he's in a blind draw with high ground on three sides. That doesn't mean they might not be able to fight their way out of that tight spot, but they definitely exhibited some irrational and poor tactical thinking to get there.

My big concern is the risk that they might get some bill on the floor for a vote, with it sure to go down in flames, and then we'll see some sort of copycat Sandy Hook or similar huge tragedy right before voting. That scenario could cost us hugely.

loose noose

January 27, 2013, 10:12 PM

Tell me how do you get the e-mail address of Diane Feinsteine?

TFL

January 27, 2013, 11:27 PM

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

on her web page
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501

hso

January 28, 2013, 08:38 AM

Let's stay focused on the topic of bracing up those Congresspersons up for reelection in 2014 that have shown any support for RKBA and reminding those that aren't dedicated Antis that the costs to the supporters of any new law restricting magazines, firearms, or ammunition will be higher than the '96, '98, and 2000 elections.

Remind them that Clinton and Feinstein gave too much credit to the NRA at the time of the backlash to AWB '94 for the losses in Congress and that the same mistakes are being made now.
Even more now than then, the number of voters who own these firearms and magazines that use this ammunition out number NRA members and far far outnumber hunters.
Even more now than then we're better connected and organized through internet forums and social media. Even more now than then the facts and actual data on crime showing that murder rates have fallen ever since AWB '94 expired are readily available and easily shared demonstrating the fact that AWB '13 supporters are lying to the American voters.

There are far more of us, we have access to better information, we're far better organized on our own, and we'll be far more active in removing any politician from office that wants to restrict firearms, magazines or ammunition we might want to own.

ezkl2230

January 28, 2013, 12:25 PM

I just faxed her the following letter:

Senator,

I am not from your state, but I have contacted my own legislators numerous time over the years regarding proposed gun control measures. Since you are the one spearheading this legislation, I now contact you directly.

For the record, I am one of the millions of firearms owners who does his own research and who speaks for himself. I am a Constitutional Constructionist. The Preamble of the Bill of Rights, which records that the Bill of Rights was passed by a veto-proof two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and ratified by a supermajority of the legislatures of the States, states its purpose as follows:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution (bolding added).

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

While federalist justices may choose to ignore the clear meaning of this document, its intent is clear: the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights supersede the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution - placing the Second Amendment beyond the power of the federal government to infringe upon the right enumerated therein. This is the explicit, stated purpose of the Bill of Rights.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports make two things crystal clear: 1) Murder and other violent crimes have diminished to historic lows even as firearms ownership and carry increases to historic highs. 2) The states with the most murders and other violent crimes are those that have implemented the strictest gun control measures.

Additional research performed by criminologists tells us that, despite the recent spike in mass shootings, such events have been on the decline since the '90's:

"And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject
since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning."

Senator, I STAND OPPOSED TO THE GUN CONTROL MEASURES YOU HAVE PROPOSED. I will do everything in my power to bring together the grassroots support necessary to keep your proposals from being realized.

Respectfully submitted,

ezkl2230

January 28, 2013, 12:27 PM

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

on her web page
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501
If you are not from California, the email system won't accept your message. You will need to fax, call, or snailmail her.

Kiln

January 28, 2013, 04:20 PM

Yesterday I got to listen to my grandparents yelling at me that the NRA is a terror group and that the Brady Campaign is just trying to help limit the damage.

When I tried to explain the facts to them and that there was a mass shooting during the last AWB and why an AWB would be ineffective now, I basically got them putting their hands over their ears yelling "lalalalala" because they don't care about the facts.

My own family has been corrupted by news networks trying to demonize the NRA and paint them as bad guys who don't want to protect children. This whole thing stinks and the NRA, who is fighting for the people of this country, are being attacked for it.

News agencies like CNN are brainwashing a large portion of the population and it makes me sick.

Cosmoline

January 28, 2013, 04:46 PM

Everyone in AK needs to be writing Begich in particular. In fact both he and the moderate Murkowski are liable to be key figures in this debate. As AK residents our letters will get more attention. If possible and you're in the DC area look into getting a face-to-face chat with them. We're from such a small state that this is indeed possible.

ezkl2230

January 30, 2013, 09:02 PM

Given the waning interest in her bill among the speakers at the Wednesday hearing, Sen. Feinstein wants to assemble her own panel and hold her own hearing on ‘military-style assault’ weapons.

“I’m concerned and registered my concern with Sen. Leahy yesterday, that the witnesses are skewed to the anti-gun [control], anti-assault weapons [ban] position,” Feinstein told POLITICO. “He agreed that I would be able to do my own hearing on the assault weapons legislation which I will proceed to do.”

Despite what appears to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Feinstein believes her AWB has a chance of passing through the Senate.

“I believe we have the votes on the Democratic side to pass out the bill,” Feinstein said.

Cosmoline - I have contacted both Begich and Murkowski and Don Young. I am not too worried about Young and Begich has also said point blank that he will not support more in control. Murkowski's response to my first round of emails was not as solid as Begich's. I will post them both here tomorrow.

JERRY

January 31, 2013, 04:01 AM

democrats on the national level will do as they are told.

goon

January 31, 2013, 04:35 PM

As promised - responses from Alaska's Senators:

Mark Begich (D)
Dear Mr. XXXX :

Thank you for contacting me about the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

I was shocked by this horrifying event, and my heart goes out to the victims, families and the Sandy Hook community as they face this tragedy. This was a terrible, senseless crime against some of the most vulnerable.

In the aftermath of this awful crime, we must be vigilant about addressing future threats to public safety. There is no simple solution, but I do not believe more restrictive gun laws will prevent criminals from committing acts of violence. I have always been and continue to be a strong defender of Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.

I believe this tragedy, and the shooting earlier this year in Aurora, Colorado, illustrate a pressing need to improve mental health services in this country. The Sandy Hook shooter was in early adulthood, a time when mental illnesses frequently develop. I have introduced a bill, S. 3325, the Mental Health First Aid Higher Education Act of 2012 , to improve mental health services on college campuses. This legislation would establish a program to provide training to faculty members, dormitory resident advisors, and other members of the college community to recognize the signs of mental illness and safely address crisis situations.

We must do more to keep our communities and families safe, and legislation like this is an important step in the right direction. I will continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to promote mental health services and prevent violence.

Thank you again for contacting me about this tragedy. Please continue to be in touch with your thoughts and concerns.

Sincerely,
Mark Begich
U.S. Senator

Lisa Murkowski (R)

Dear XXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

I cannot express how deeply saddened I am by the events of that day , and I join all Alaskans as we continue to pray and mourn for the victims, families, and all those who have lost their loved ones to this tragedy. Alaskans and Americans remain united in thought, prayer and support for the entire Sandy Hook community.

This tragedy has prompted many Alaskans to contact me about gun control measures. Americans must remain vigilant in the protection of our constitutional rights, as I have done and will continue to do. As we continue to struggle to grasp the needless deaths of 20 young children, all viewpoints must be included when considering how to appropriately respond to this tragedy . Some would argue that there is an urgency in having Congress act unilaterally to restrict the possession of firearms and ammunition, but that argument is all too frequently made by people unsympathetic or unfamiliar with the recreational shooter or hunter's lifestyle – and creates division between urban and rural America when we need to come together most.

Now is not the time to demonize those who possess and use firearms lawfully. It is time to build a national consensus, with firearms owners, about how to prevent incidents lik e those we have recently seen. And we must look at the issue from all perspectives – our broken mental health system; violence on television, in video games, and in movies; the safety of public places; and the safe storage of firearms in the home. Demanding the vast majority of us who responsibly use firearms to give up our individual freedoms in the interest of community safety simply may not make our communities safer. But as part of a national consensus, firearms owners may well be willing to live with greater regulation if they play an active role in the formulation of that regulation.

If Congress considers issues related to the Newtown shootings, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me.

United States Senator

Lisa Murkowski (signed)

ezkl2230

January 31, 2013, 04:51 PM

Giffords and others continue to refer to Christina Green, the nine year old girl who died in the Arizona attack, as a rallying call for gun control, but they conveniently forget the words of her own father, spoken in the aftermath of their daughter's death:

"This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative."

They also forget the words of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, killed during the Columbine shooting:

"The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. "In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.

I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent...."

What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.

We do not need more restrictive laws." Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers..."

Both men sound remarkably like Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

Deer_Freak

January 31, 2013, 05:09 PM

I called Senator Kay Hagan's office with questions about Senator Feinstein's bill. Senator Hagan's representative told me to call Senator Feinstein's office since they should know the answers to my questions. Those people from CA must be dumb as a rock because they couldn't answer any of my questions. Now if I was a Senator I would be prepared to answer common questions the people would have about any piece of legislation I introduced to the senate. Those people from CA didn't even know the police were not responsible for my personal safety. They tried to argue me down. I read the supreme court rulings to them. Then they just said that is what the senator wants, without any explanation.

ezkl2230

January 31, 2013, 07:57 PM

Since you aren't from Cali, I'm surprised they even spoke with you.

michaelbsc

February 2, 2013, 01:51 PM

I know the majority of folks here are pretty conservative, but there are some who aren't and keep quiet.

And I know there are a few who can't stomach the thought of coughing up a dime to the NRA, although I think that's a mistake.

Here are a couple of liberal links for organizations, specifically Democratic Party, that small though they may be, are worthy of consideration if you fit the profile.

http://www.facebook.com/dgocofmo
http://www.bluesteeldemocrats.org

Obviously the first link isn't much good other than moral support if you aren't in MO. And the Blue Steel Democrats have chapters in only a handful of states. Feel free to organize one in yours if appropriate.

(No, I didn't vote for Obama or Romney. This is a gun link.)

Just like a monoculture corn crop can lead to famine from a single blight while genetic diversity offers stability, diversity in defense of RKBA helps us all.

goon

February 2, 2013, 06:28 PM

There is also a Liberal Gun Club.

I didn't know such a place existed either until last week. Still, I have had some decent conversations over there and as long as you stay on the topic of guns, even those on the right probably will have no problems.
And we should stay on the topic of guns.
You can argue with liberals about whatever you want later... right now work with those who value the RKBA, regardless of political viewpoints, and protect the Second Amendment.
In fact, liberals who own guns and are registered as Democrats can apply a type of pressure on those in the democratic party that conservatives can't. No matter how much a Republican rants about gun control, he is unlikely to have voted for a Democrat anyhow. But those within the party can choose a more pro-gun candidate in primary elections and replace an anti-gun candidate. They can also pressure Democrats that they voted for to respect the RKBA... because again, it is the votes of Democrats (mostly) that put Democrats in office.

Even those who are not interested in joining may want to surf the LGC discussion forums to get an idea of how liberal gun owners feel about this latest round of attacks on the Second Amendment.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/

michaelbsc

February 3, 2013, 12:01 AM

There is also a Liberal Gun Club.

[...]

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/

This is the link for their discussion forums. Poke around over there and there's actually an associated "Liberal Gun Club" one can join with dues and everything.

No, there's no plastic membership card, and no hat, and no American Rifleman. But like goon says, there's an alternative point of view that's reaches the same conclusion via a different mindset. Don't knock it. And while the NRA may be the gorilla in the room, they're not the 800 lbs they used to be. They're a 400 lbs gorilla at best.

If the Liberal Gun Club is a 90 lbs chimpanzee on the same team, we want them.

So you bet your sweet bippie I'm a member of both.

SuperNaut

February 3, 2013, 10:49 AM

What makes us distinct from most other gun organizations is that we believe that reasonable gun regulations are a good thing

No, that's what makes them exactly like all the other AHSA astro-turf orgs out there.

Definitely won't be joining an org that believes that concession equals compromise.

Slotback

February 3, 2013, 11:22 AM

Regardless of whether your rep or senator has a D or an R next to their name, keep the heat on. Keep writing. Don't let up.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 3, 2013, 12:13 PM

What makes us distinct from most other gun organizations is that we believe that reasonable gun regulations are a good thing

Everybody believes reasonable gun regulations are a good thing. It is just that one organization thinks banning all semi-automatic weapons is "reasonable." Anytime someone says they support "reasonable" gun regulations, I just assume they support wholesale gun bans and just don't have the courage to state it outright. May be that isn't fair; but it has sure been borne out by experience.

SuperNaut

February 3, 2013, 12:54 PM

michaelbsc and other LGC members, what if the ACLU took the stance the we had to "compromise" a little on rape? You know, in certain instances, the woman was drunk and wearing provocative clothing, so rape in that instance was justified.

I'm not making the case that you or anyone else should join to The Liberal Gun Club.

I offer the information because a number of people cannot bring themselves to support the NRA, especially Democrats. If they want it there it is.

I think you perceive them as an extension of the gun grabbers. I can't change that. But the fact is that universal background checks is far from popular.

As for myself, I am a member of both in order have a say. You have no influence if you are not a member.

What I have been saying LaPierre should be doing, contrary to your thinking that I might want to compromise, is to argue that no major federal gun laws all the way back to NFA-1934 have ever made a dent in violent crime, so forget new laws. Instead he should be going to the directors of federal organizations like the National Institute of Mental Health offering to twist off a few Congressional arms for funding. Those directors are political animals just like everybody else in Washington. They live for funding.

Sam Cade

February 4, 2013, 12:35 AM

Definitely won't be joining an org that believes that concession equals compromise.

Agreed.

Ash

February 4, 2013, 06:38 AM

Concession...see what that got Chamberlain? Concession only emboldens the enemy if folks would ever bother to learn history.

SuperNaut

February 4, 2013, 09:14 AM

What I have been saying LaPierre should be doing, contrary to your thinking that I might want to compromise, is to argue that no major federal gun laws all the way back to NFA-1934 have ever made a dent in violent crime, so forget new laws. Instead he should be going to the directors of federal organizations like the National Institute of Mental Health offering to twist off a few Congressional arms for funding. Those directors are political animals just like everybody else in Washington. They live for funding.

So is that what the principals of the Liberal Gun Club are doing? What is the name of the legal/lobby wing of the Liberal Gun Club?

What We Do

In support of our mission, the Liberal Gun Club maintains an active membership with many formal and informal activities and initiatives.

Some of these include:

We provide a voice to the millions of gun owners who do not subscribe to the right-wing rhetoric surrounding firearm ownership by engaging politicians as well as the public on important firearms issues.
We provide an online alternative to existing Second Amendment forums, allowing Liberal and Moderate views to be expressed and actively debated. We encourage well thought out and reasoned positions and discourage personal attacks and angry tirades.
We host regular shooting events to promote marksmanship and safety.
We have created a Basic Firearms Safety Course and are creating other formal safety programs to promote firearm safety, marksmanship and responsible ownership.
We provide members with access to our sporadically published magazine “The Liberal Shooter” as well as our newsletter, “The Phalanx”.

Nevermind, their own website answers the question, the answer in that they do nothing on a national level, they have no voice in Washington, and they have no legal/lobby wing.

But hey, they sometimes put out a newsletter!

Joining the Liberal Gun Club is worse than doing nothing.

goon

February 4, 2013, 09:47 AM

Do you want those with different political points of view to help you defend the Second Amendment or not?
It's a simple enough question. Personally, I am all for anything that gets gun owners anywhere near organized and gets them shooting. If it fosters a deeper respect of gun ownership and the Second Amendment, it can get someone to write his or her rep.
There are lots of Fudd hunters or "sportsmen" who belong to no organization and would gladly sell us and our AK's off if it means they can keep their remchesters.
At least someone who joins the LGC is participating in something, even something CMP affiliated no less.

http://ct.thecmp.org/app/v1/index.php?do=clubDisplay&club=6228

And I don't belong to the LGC, but given the reception "liberals" get from conservative gun owners, could you blame them for wanting to avoid organizations where they are not welcome?

SuperNaut

February 4, 2013, 09:52 AM

Do you want those with different political points of view to help you defend the Second Amendment or not?

That is exactly what I want, that is why I would discourage anyone from joining the Liberal Gun Club in the name of activism.

And I don't belong to the LGC, but given the reception "liberals" get from conservative gun owners, could you blame them for wanting to avoid organizations where they are not welcome?

Pish-posh, I'm politically an anarcho-individualist yet I can still recognize whether or not an organization is effective. Joining the Liberal Gun Club for community is fine, donating to the Liberal Gun Club under the pretense of activism is delusional.

goon

February 4, 2013, 10:01 AM

It may not be ideal, but its a step. It's better than nothing. How can you say that a CMP affiliated club that gets people to the range, that SPECIFICALLY TARGETS those who are more likely to be unfamiliar with guns and against their ownership, is bad thing?
It is possible that this group can plant a seed on ground that a conservative gun owner could never get to, no matter how well intentioned.

No offense, but I think my time will be better spent writing my reps instead of arguing on THR, so I wish you the best.

pnolans

February 4, 2013, 05:48 PM

I'm new here, but would like to add... I know enough people in Colorado who do NOT buy the gun-control argument, who are opposed to gun-control and are absolutely NOT conservative or libertarian.

I myself am not a conservative, but I'm a member of the NRA and have written to everyone I can to oppose any further gun-control legislation.

Just something to consider.

I mention this in the context of the folks discussing the Liberal Gun Club. I too am a "anarcho-individualist"..as SuperNaut called himself. I call myself a "contrarian"..

If you enjoyed reading about ""Democrats may stand in Obama's way on gun measures"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!